|
|
Post by washingtonhoya on Feb 21, 2008 9:01:14 GMT -5
Can I ask a stupid question? I apologize for my political ignorance if there is a sensible answer to this, but....WTF, Washington? Why did they have a primary last night after the caucuses earlier this month? I think there were some delegates at stake for the GOP, but why do they divide their delegates up into the caucus and the primary? On the Dem side, it's even stranger, since ALL of their delegates were awarded during the caucus and nothing was at stake last night. Do the other caucus states do this? If so, why? If not, what the hell are they putting in the coffee and/or salmon up there in Evergreen land? To be honest, I dislike the caucus system for many of the reasons that have been laid out on this board. I don't like the idea of making a public vote that is subject to the scrutiny and bullying of your neighbors, etc. etc. Not to mention as a college student living away from WA I stand no chance of being able to take part in the system that allocates the entirety of the Democrats' delegates and half of the Republicans'. HOWEVA, it's probably time to do away with the primary in WA, and the Secretary of State planned to do so a couple years ago until some bizarre argument about the tradition of open polls was enough to keep it around. Ironically, there are no open polls in WA anymore since the entire state has switched to vote by mail within the past couple years. What I'd like to see is all delegates allocated by primary results and the caucus abandoned, but given the sway the parties have over the caucusing in WA, it would make the most pragmatic sense to become a caucus-only state. Otherwise you just have a $10 million contest that doesn't mean a thing--aside from getting McCain's numbers to be more representative of the state than the caucus results (really, 21% for Ron Paul? I guess the fanatics love their caucusing). This being my first presidential election in which I get to vote, I haven't followed the debate over changing the primary--WA had its own problems with public outrage over switching to a blanket primary a few years ago--but it's aggravating to know that as a student away from WA, my options are basically limited to one party, and what I think effectively counts for 1/2 a vote (and only then if I vote in the GOP primary). |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Feb 25, 2008 11:45:54 GMT -5
This race is about to get ugly, especially if Obama sweeps tomorrow. In that case, HRC is just about boxed in to having to win TX or OH convincingly, I think, and she will not hesitate to campaign negatively with her back against the wall. Prophecy fulfilled: www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Feb 25, 2008 12:28:19 GMT -5
She's been going negative for a while, and the Obama folks have been calling her out on it.
The stuff she's bringing up is pretty weak though. The 'plagiarism' thing was pretty incredible - Obama quoted a friend once, and the next time he forgot to mention he was quoting somebody. If Hillary has to dig that far to find something negative on Obama, I think that's a pretty good reflection on him.
|
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Feb 25, 2008 13:37:24 GMT -5
She's been going negative for a while, and the Obama folks have been calling her out on it. The stuff she's bringing up is pretty weak though. The 'plagiarism' thing was pretty incredible - Obama quoted a friend once, and the next time he forgot to mention he was quoting somebody. If Hillary has to dig that far to find something negative on Obama, I think that's a pretty good reflection on him. I thought him saying he wanted to be President in kindergarten was going a bit far too. The Somali elder dress is worse than the Jessie Jackson comment, IMO. |
|
